Forum for discussion and essays on a wide range of subjects including technology, politics, economics, philosophy, and partying.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

The Most Telling Statistic

Now that I'm (mostly) over my surprise that Trump won, the most telling statistic to me is this: Clinton won 93% of the vote in Washinton, DC (to Trump's 4%). 93%! 93% of those living in the heart of the elite's power voted for Clinton, thereby clearly and unequivocally identifying this election as being one that pitted the elites versus the commoners, special interests against the masses, the powerful against the powerless, and yes, the refined against the deplorables.

Even more importantly, it was a contest between those that actually have to do things versus those that live off and lord it over the doers:

America is a nation of many economies, but those that produce real, tangible things — food, fiber, energy and manufactured goods — went overwhelmingly for Trump.

The elite have unabashedly and purposefully made things harder for the workers and business owners that actually do and make things and Trump was the only one who even considered addressing the growing frustration and anger of those folks. As far as I can tell, Hillary never reached out to them, instead not only ignoring them but deeming them deplorables, mostly beneath her notice and certainly unworthy of her respect.

I personally was unable to bring myself to vote for either candidate, but fortunately the results in California were so certain (for Hillary) that I knew my vote wouldn't possibly matter. To me, Clinton was a known awful and Trump was an unknown ... well, just mostly unknown. Oh sure, he's crude, rude, and lewd, and flawed like every human, but I don't much care about that. In fact, that part is almost refreshing to me. It's what he'll do as President that's pretty much unknown, at least to me.

I held my nose and voted for Trump. Well, more to the point, I voted against Clinton and the left's overweening arrogance.

(I sure as heck didn't expect him to win, even though I wild ass guessed that there was a 3-4% pollster affinity bias (or whatever the heck it is called when people respond with what they think is socially expected, instead of what they really think). The MSM so relentlessly rubbished Trump, and his potential voters, that there had to be some people whose responses and voting behavior were opposite.)

Never mind all the collectivist nonsense, Hillary! is corruption and deceit incarnate. There is no doubting she should be in prison for her email server. There is no doubting the Clinton foundation was selling access (pro-tip: watch donations dry up.) There is no doubting she lies as a matter of deeply ingrained habit, even when she doesn't need to (eg. Sarajevo, sniper fire). She was a horrible candidate that, for reasons unfathomable, the DNC decided to coronate.

And the left, in its overweening arrogance, expected we would accede. They have no idea, even today, how much most of the country hates the left, and with a whole host of good reasons: MSM bias beyond satire. Its inherent totalitarianism -- from bathrooms to coercing photographers and pizza parlor owners, and the horror show that masquerades as "higher" education. And the endless slinging of racist/homophobe/islamophobe/misogynist at everyone who dared contradict progressive shibboleths. Here's another pro-tip: defamation doth not an argument make.

A tip that, obvious though it seems, is beyond the ken of progressives in general, with Harry providing endless examples of the rule.

I'm a fairly regular listener of This American Life. While it is obvious that the entire staff is just as leftwing as the rest of NPR, the stories are mostly apolitical, offbeat and quite good. However, over the past several weeks they have run shows on this election. In particular, this episode tries to understand Trump supporters and their racism.

It is a good faith effort that entirely misses the point. A town in Minnesota becomes host to tens of thousands of Somalian immigrants, and for the most part, doesn't like it. Racist, right? Obviously. Perhaps there are other, wholly unexplored explanations. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THEY WERE NEVER ASKED. And, it is difficult to miss a glaring fact: the people making the podcast don't live where the immigrants are.

And despite having been blindsided -- easy to do when the left sees so little and understands less -- they don't spend a moment trying to understand where their arguments are unpersuasive, or where those who disagree might just have a point, it is racism and racism and sexism and sexism all the way down.

I think it hilarious that just a week ago, the MSM was, faking concern while actually exulting, opining about what was going to happen after the route of the Republican party.

Clovis, of all the things I have read in the last couple days, you alone have provided a link to what Trump says he will do.

In that list, what do you find objectionable?

I wonder, depending on how that Trump presidency goes, are you going to own it too in future?

Hmmm. Somehow, I don't think anyone asked that question of Obama voters. Despite his membership in an avowedly racist church. He presided over the corruption of the IRS, foisted the self-destroying travesty of Obamacare on us, has committed no end of affronts to the Constitution, proven himself to have an infant's comprehension of international relations, etc, etc, etc.

And you forget to list what would attend the alternative: continued expansion of the state, nominating SCOTUS judges who couldn't possibly care less about the constitution, enabling the Maoist tyrants on college campuses, even more "Dear Colleague" letters from the Department of Education, and further corrupting government by rewarding someone who by all rights should be behind bars and never again have access to classified information.

---In that list, what do you find objectionable?---Not my country, nor my president. Why am I to find anything there objectionable?

Now, if you are inviting me to place myself in your position, I would worry about the provision to withdraw from NAFTA - I don't think that will help the economy. And if he really wants to make Mexicans pay for that wall (by taxing money they send to Mexico from the US), I am surprised no one noticed American companies send money back from Mexico to their headquarters too. Likewise, his plans for China will lead to reciprocal measures.

I also would worry about his tax reform, it sure doesn't look like to be revenue neutral. It will most probably hike your deficits, for he doesn't look to have a plan to cut expenditures at the same rate you'd lose revenue. Some market analysts are now betting on higher inflation and interest rates.

When I look at Trump's economic worldview, I can not help but feel like I am looking at a Latin American populist, orange version.

---[Clovis] I wonder, depending on how that Trump presidency goes, are you going to own it too in future?[Skipper] It's a funny coin that doesn't have two sides.---It is funny how long a discourse someone can write, without ever addressing the initial question.

Clovis asks: "I wonder, depending on how that Trump presidency goes, are you going to own it too in future?"

Even though I didn't vote for him, I still will end up owning it, won't I? That's what being a subject/serf is all about. Just like I own the results of Obama. Just like you kinda own the results of Brazilian politics whether you want to or not, right?

Clovis wrote: "I can not help but feel like I am looking at a Latin American populist, orange version."

I ate bananas for breakfast election day morning in honor of our becoming a banana republic!

I guess Latin America has done noticeably worse with the populists than the autocrats, but I still find it a tough choice between the two.

---Even though I didn't vote for him, I still will end up owning it, won't I?---Not in the sense I used the expression.

Skipper was asking for a moral recognition of failures by progs who voted for Obama or Hillary, so I turned the question back to him. His answer, or lack of it, is telling.

---I ate bananas for breakfast election day morning in honor of our becoming a banana republic!---I can concede things look a bit messy in the USA these days. But you are still so many bananas away from us...

---I guess Latin America has done noticeably worse with the populists than the autocrats, but I still find it a tough choice between the two.---That's hard to say. In Brazil for example, you would be hard pressed to differentiate the autocrats from the populists based on their economic policies.

The USA is, maybe, the only country on Earth with room enough to accommodate years of populist policies and not pay a heavy price for it. Maybe Trump will be spendthrift, maybe not, or maybe Congress will rein in his excesses - it doesn't matter much either waym IMHO.

The real damage Trump may do to the USA is on its projection of 'soft power' though. I have lived through Bush times, and anything I saw back then pales in comparison to the reactions I am getting from people, in Brazil and abroad, to Trump's election. I can't see him both fulfilling his campaign promises and reverting that trend. It will be interesting times.

I would worry about the provision to withdraw from NAFTA - I don't think that will help the economy.

As always it is helpful to quote directly, in order to avoid misconstruing what was actually said.

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

This provision doesn't say Trump desires to leave NAFTA, only that his goal is to renegotiate, and then, if that fails, withdraw.

Two entirely different things.

Left unsaid is exactly what he would renegotiate. I have no idea, and I'd be willing to bet that there isn't anything, or at least anything substantial. And if there is, then why shouldn't the US renegotiate those elements, with the threat of withdrawal to back things up?

I happen to completely agree with you that withdrawing from NAFTA, or any other substantial impediments to international trade would amount to self inflicted wounds. IIRC, in the first Bush 43 term, he agreed to erect some tariffs to protect steel and tire manufacturers.

They quickly hit the rocks, for the same reason that similar moves would do so today — there is almost no way to protect one group of employees in the US without hurting another.

IMHO, this is a goal easily satisfied without doing anything particularly significant, unless significant is called for.

And if he really wants to make Mexicans pay for that wall (by taxing money they send to Mexico from the US), I am surprised no one noticed American companies send money back from Mexico to their headquarters too.

Good point.

On the face of it, his pledge to make the Mexican government pay for the wall seems pretty awful. But is it? After all, the problem — and it is a problem — is an essentially unfettered flow of illegal aliens across the southern border. That problem exists because Mexico's long history of single party government and government has created an very underperforming economy, hence the illegal immigration.

So the question really is: why should the US pay to deal with a problem it is suffering but didn't create, and about which Mexico does nothing?

For the reason you gave, I doubt he will get the Mexican government to pay for the wall; however, I'd love to hear an argument about why they shouldn't, or how this goal makes Trump a racist.

I also would worry about his tax reform, it sure doesn't look like to be revenue neutral. It will most probably hike your deficits, for he doesn't look to have a plan to cut expenditures at the same rate you'd lose revenue. Some market analysts are now betting on higher inflation and interest rates.

Another good point. And one that people who think debt doesn't matter can't take on board. At the moment, IIRC, US annual federal debt is about 3.6% of GDP. The consensus among economists is that debt less than 3% is sustainable over the long term, about the same as long term economic growth. If the US doesn't get a better match between revenue and spending, then interest rates will go up, which, given the magnitude of our total debt, is a very bad thing indeed.

And in the same way Trump faces constraints with international trade, he also does with regard to revenue and expenditures.

Of course, Trump would reply that making trade "fairer" (scare quotes, because it isn't clear how unfair it actually is), and reducing/simplifying stifling government regulation would produce economic growth, hence revenue, making a reduction in tax rates possible so long as government growth is constrained (see several other goals).

I think the trade case is overstated, but the regulatory state is out of control, and corporate tax rates could come down substantially. (IMHO, since corporations don't pay a dime of corporate taxes, they should be eliminated and replaced with higher income tax rates. Since consumers are already paying corporate taxes, there is no point perpetuating the lie.)

So it is possible, even likely to get lower middle class rates. But the change in growth should, and could, precede changes in rates. Which has never meant anything to any politician ever.

A wall only leads to tunneling and other ways to overcome it. Strict enforcement is much more effective and BTW Mexico doesn't allow non-citizens to own property and has other restrictions on people coming into the country. Why aren't they racists?

Here’s something that put a smile on my face this morning, and adding to that smile is Christie is no longer heading Trump's transition team. I also like the fact that his kids and his very smart son-in-law are also on the team. I hope, like the sainted martyr, Trump will put family members in key government positions and dare the media to demur.

... Endorsed by the Stones: Does Trump know how to pick 'em or what !!!!

Our local liberal rag had nary a word about all the anti-Trump violence, but devoted half the front page to a Facebook entry by a low level functionary who donated money to the Republican party. He was distressed about a man dressed in traditional Arab garb on his plane -- and -- horrors -- he was on his way to the Trump victory party.

Read the article to the end for this amazing quote: ... it's impossible to know just by looking at the man in question whether he is Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Many Arabs of different faiths wear the same style of clothing, and people from all over the world wear similar types of headdresses, he said. “It’s not really an element of Islam.

In case you are worried that contemporary feminists have thrown evidence and reason over the side in favor of baseless generalizations and fainting couch emotion, well, Lena Dunham will be no help whatsoever.

A racist is a white person who votes against negroes because of the color of their skins.

A non-racist is a white person who votes for negroes because of the color of their skins.

Since they all march in mindless lock-step, our betters deny us individuality and see us all as cogs to be manipulated.

Grim "humor": Looks like the even the elements in New Zealand got so nauseous that so many of our worst lefties, including Justice Ginsburg, were moving there, they erupted and threw up all over the place.

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.

...

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor

Full disclosure: I have a subscription because I have been doing the Times crossword puzzles since I'm 14 years old and didn't want to give it up. I don't migrate from the puzzle page.

I subscribe to the NYT, because I wish to not confine myself to an echo chamber, and feel morally obliged to pay for content.

No matter how offal.

The NYT wouldn't know objective journalism if an election ran over them. It doesn't understand the law, and hates the constitution. It routinely twists reality to fit its policy preferences, without any understanding that knife cuts both ways.

... does this mean you don't think there will be changes at the Times? s/off

Depending on how well Trump does, there may not be any print media left after four years. If he gets eight years, we may truly be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave again with multiple points of view freely bandied about even on college campi and city streets safe for We, the People to stroll about.

More anecdotes: Yesterday a friend who'd had surgery on her shoulder, was in pain and in a very foul mood, asked me to drive her Walmart's, a place I rarely enter. I didn't want to say no and add to her discomfort, so there we were with the human dregs of every color and creed on the so-called, customer service, line.

The venom was palatable between and among those of various melanin levels -- with both sides giving as good as they got.

We two old parties, one in practically a body cast, were whisked through and weren't bothered, but it hurt me to see what we've been turned into by the progs in their mindless march to balkanize us.

By the way, Harry, Judaism is NOT a race. It's a religion and culture. For example, my family is Jewish, but we're as whitebread as can be, having lost even any hint of extra melanin in the millennia my ancestors spent in northeastern europe. So Trump's team may well be racist, but using examples of possible antisemitism isn't really a very good example, especially since we know Trump very much adores his jewish daughter.

---[Nafta renegotiation] IMHO, this is a goal easily satisfied without doing anything particularly significant, unless significant is called for.---

If you think you are making it better, you aren't. If this is a non-goal, as you see it, and still part of a list of first goals to achieve, its design was to fool the unemployed citizens of the rust belt.

And you still "don't see any appeals to populism in any of them", right?

---So the question really is: why should the US pay to deal with a problem it is suffering but didn't create, and about which Mexico does nothing?

For the reason you gave, I doubt he will get the Mexican government to pay for the wall; however, I'd love to hear an argument about why they shouldn't, or how this goal makes Trump a racist.---Oh, so another written promess made to the wind? No, not a populist at all...

I say you need to prove they inflicted damages to the USA before you can ask them to pay for them.

I agree with you the Mexican border is a problem. For Mexico. They are the ones losing people and life to the USA. Maybe they should not only ask you to build that wall (with your own money), but also claim some reparation for the black hole it may have created to their economy all along. How about that for an argument?

---[On Taxes] So it is possible, even likely to get lower middle class rates.---I guess you didn't bother to check those facts before voting. So maybe you want to check them now.

A few bits:

------------For instance, at a rally in Scranton, Pa., Trump promised to "massively cut taxes for the middle class, the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country, who built our country." During a town hall meeting on NBC's Today show, he said he believes in raising taxes on the wealthy.

[...]

But Trump's plan does the opposite, says Lily Batchelder, a law professor at New York University and visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

"If you look at the most wealthy, the top 1 percent would get about half of the benefits of his tax cuts, and a millionaire, for example, would get an average tax cut of $317,000," she says.

But a family earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would get a tax cut of only $560, she says, and millions of middle-class working families will see their tax bills rise under Trump's plan — especially single-parent families.

[...]

Donald Trump's plan would boost taxes for many families, with some of the largest increases applying to single-parent families "because of the repeal of the head of household filing status and personal exemptions."

[...]

Economists disagree on whether the tax plan would be good for the economy. The Tax Policy Center says that over the first decade, the government would lose $6.2 trillion in revenue, producing huge budget deficits that could hurt the economy.

One other element of the Trump plan is worth noting: It would eliminate the federal estate tax entirely. Only the wealthiest taxpayers — less than 1 percent — now pay that tax. Ending it would lead to an even greater concentration of wealth in the U.S.------------

Harry, please get it straight, Jew-haters are anti-Semites, not racists* and it's not credible that Trump appointed an anti-Semite as a senior advisor as his son-in-law and daughter are both Orthodox Jews and you can hardly get anymore Jewish than that!!!!

[Harry:] Let's see, Trump just appointed as senior adviser a man who objected to having his children attend school with Jews.

That asserted without proof may be discarded without regret.

I would have thought that by now you would have learned not to do this drive by defaming. Apparently not. So until you can provide some evidence that you are relating some version of reality, instead of your own unreasoning hatred, this stands as further proof that you are a liar.

Of course, as always, if you can prove me wrong, I shall abjectly apologize.

[Clovis:] If you think you are making it better, you aren't. If this is a non-goal, as you see it, and still part of a list of first goals to achieve, its design was to fool the unemployed citizens of the rust belt.

And you still "don't see any appeals to populism in any of them", right?

Surely, you don't think that any politician's every utterance is delivered without reservation or evasion?

Just as Hillary! was a bottomless font of meaningless blather, I don't expect anything Trump said to be truth until the end of time, or even the first round of drinks following dinner.

Also, you have read far more into what I said than I can possibly have intended. I fully admit that I know almost nothing about what the letters in NAFTA stand for. (Not Another Free Trade Agreement, right?)

Given that ignorance, as I made abundantly clear, it is entirely possible that there are elements within NAFTA that are unfair to the US. It may well be there are also elements unfair to the other parties within NAFTA. If that is the case, then it isn't a particular reach to insist they be renegotiated, is it?

And if there isn't, then write it off to political bluster. Big deal. It isn't like he's threatening to put anyone in railroad cars, or anything else, for that matter.

[HS:] So the question really is: why should the US pay to deal with a problem it is suffering but didn't create, and about which Mexico does nothing?

[Clovis:] Oh, so another written promise made to the wind? No, not a populist at all...

I say you need to prove they inflicted damages to the USA before you can ask them to pay for them.

Stop being so bloody literal. No one believed that Trump's insistence he would get the Mexican government to pay for the wall meant that it would eventually happen with absolute certainty. He was using rhetoric to make a point: he understood that the benefits of unconstrained immigration were not uniformly distributed, and he was going to make that right for the people who kept ending up on the mucky end of that barge pole.

Whether the Mexican government pays for a barrier, or we do, is nearly irrelevant.

You do have a point, though. It is not only possible, but near as dammit to certain that the US — overall — has benefitted from illegal immigration. But that is a far cry from saying that the entire US has benefitted. It hasn't, and those groups most affected have been completely ignored.

If you are a roofer, drywaller, plumber, gardener, etc anywhere near the southern border, you have been hurt.

I agree with you the Mexican border is a problem. For Mexico.

They don't act like it's a problem, and they aren't fixing the causes of the problem, either.

A few bits:

Did the author of that article look to any other outside source besides the Tax Policy Center?

One other element of the Trump plan is worth noting: It would eliminate the federal estate tax entirely. Only the wealthiest taxpayers — less than 1 percent — now pay that tax. Ending it would lead to an even greater concentration of wealth in the U.S.

Bollocks. Pure, unadulterated bollocks. Clearly the author hasn't bothered to investigate what happens to family fortunes over time. In almost all cases, IIRC, three generations on, the wealth from the creator generation is essentially gone.

Yeah, I see you can't see it. To tell you the truth, that's the real scaring part of it all.

It isn't my fault you can't see political rhetoric for what it is, or understand how universal it is. Hillary! claimed the government would create untold numbers of jobs.

Clovis, John did a fast calculation for this year and said depending on the ages of kids and other things, they'd get even more from us generous tax payers and in many cases, Earned Income Credit, giving them a "refund" of more money than they paid in.

In addition, pretty near half potential taxpayers aren't working at all, but on the dole.

We are trillions of dollars in debt and the only way out is for us all to pull our weight, pay our own way, raise revenues, and get the government out of our lives, our schools, our healthcare and stick to their knitting as outlined in the Constitution.

Re: Tax law. It was written to benefit families, encourage home ownership, etc. One of the reasons for gay marriage was so they could take advantage of these laws -- of course that could have been handled without weddings, but that's their business and I have no problem with it.

Academics are in the business of furthering the narrative, not providing information.

---It isn't my fault you can't see political rhetoric for what it is, or understand how universal it is. Hillary! claimed the government would create untold numbers of jobs.

How is that not populism, but what Trump said was?---

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I've been watching US Presidential elections since G.W. Bush, and I do not recall seeing so much disconnect between a candidate's platform and the expectations (or lack of it) over what he will actually do.

No, Hillary is in no way as unpredicatble as Trump - you could not like what she had to offer, but you kind of knew what it was.

There will be a wall? He most assuredly said so, do you believe it? There will be a great more deportations? He flip flopped on that so many times. Take any huuuge pledge he did, and it is worth what?

But hey, I am not new to taking "political rhetoric for what it is" - I do so every single election down here. That's why I am so surprised, the Banana is strong on Trump, that I can tell you. It is the only thing about him I am sure.